The expansion
that could wait.
A decision study for Harbor, a fictional neighborhood repair service.
The choice: open another location, or improve the experience at the one people already use?
Read the conflicting evidenceGrowth looked like a property question.
A possible second site arrived before the team had agreed what success would mean.
One group wanted to reach a new neighborhood. Another wanted to reduce the interruptions that made the current workshop difficult to run. Both called their goal “growth.” They were describing different problems.
The useful first move was to separate a location decision from a service-design decision. Neither could stand in for the other.
The evidence pulled in two directions.
A case for proximity
In the illustrative customer interviews, people described the trip as inconvenient. A closer counter could make dropping off a repair easier.
What this does not tell us: whether proximity is the main reason a customer decides against a repair.
A case for clarity
The sample journey review found uncertainty before the visit: what can be repaired, how an estimate works and when an answer will arrive.
What this does not tell us: whether a clearer promise will change behavior. That needs a real test.
Improve the first visit before adding a second location.
The team chooses a more understandable service as its immediate priority. A new location would add reach while leaving the current uncertainty intact.
The available property may not wait. Choosing the service test means accepting that this particular expansion opportunity could pass.
